Years and years ago I saw an Oprah winfrey show (on brit TV Thursday afternoons) this was before she had signed the .....so she had some rich girls there and they explained why it was impossible for them to ever fall in love with say,a binman (refuse disposal) and go live in a low rent area. Even if he was the loveliest person and soul out. They just would never meet that guy. They only hung out in places rich people hang out and there is a kind of invisible barrier that stops "the wrong people " infiltrating (unless it's the very attractive and engaging young woman Oprah had on the show who had snagged a couple of rich husbands by dint of buying one dress that had the "right " label and once through the invisible barrier,immense charm and being very funny,took her to success. Several times. But it's the natural charm you need,the dress on its own doesn't do it!!
In my patrilineal line every other generation or so for the last twenty generations, we catch ourselves a rich gal, or even an heiress. There's skill involved; as well as other social and educational pre-conditions. Being witty, fun, funny, easy on the eyes, companionable, and good in the sack are also essential.
< ... she’d tweeze any hairs that grew on his ears or escaped from his nostrils... > not even my hairdoer (female) ever did this without extra payment.
So appreciate your wife's gifts. I now own tools to keep the excesses in check, although I have someone who would take care of that. But I don't want to risk an argument if the scissors should slip; for sure, I'm always very considerate, or/and forward-thinking.
But that´s beginning to sound now like a sales pitch, which I've never been in need of, just like you..
The philosophy of exchanging one's looks for economic security goes on in ALL economic classes and is very much alive today. I can't list all of my examples. I recently watched a trial where the the alleged victim, a 36 year old tow truck operator, who sounded lower middle class based on his testimony, had been shot in the stomach 8 months prior by the defendant. The alleged victim looked ragged (reasonable given his medical odyssey since the shooting so I don't know his real "before" look). Then his very very very beautiful 21 year old wife testified and we learned the couple met when she was 16. The couple did not "match." Wife sounded uneducated. The vibe in that court was that the wife used her looks to be with this tow truck operator. I was sad for this woman. I'm sad this philosophy of looks for money is still so prevalent. Another great and provocative essay David. Be well all.
Clever! You had me going for a moment. This makes me think what a fun exercise it would be for a high school English class to write dating profiles of protagonists in the novels they’re assigned. What would Humbert Humbert’s profile be? Or Jane Eyre? Or Billy Pilgrim or Daisy Buchanan?
This essay reminds me of a fashion editor I used to know, who fell madly in love and with a man whose sense of style left much to be desired. She knew it was mutual when he threw his arms open wide and said, “Dress me, I’m yours!” They didn’t last but I still love the line.
George Eliot/Marianne Evans just needs some eye cream and a new hairstyle. She gives me the vibes of all the other moms at the drop off who live in leggings and sweatshirts drinking smoothies that possibly have too much sugar to be healthy.
it might not be visible to others or explicable or straighforward. yet it needs to be there. looks per se might or might not play a role. it's more than, or less than. doesn't matter. if it was easily explicable it wouldn't be worth writing about, or so I feel
there are many types of relationships though, so there's that too.
it's very painful when people just cut you off because they have to choose or something. and they can't stay just friends
I usually don't, or rather didn't, want to choose and don't, or rather didn't, understand fully why others have to, like some idiot toddler, and it ended badly many times.
Great how you modify a late 1800s lady's dating profile into a more modern one. Certain elements of the past remain in the present and will likely continue on into the future. The positive possibilities are multiple but so are the insidious potential pitfalls. To end up all right is quite an achievement.
On mutual attraction- necessary but not sufficient. Re George Eliot, she may have had a face that could stop a clock, but read somewhere that- spend a short time with her and guys would be besotted.
The antithesis—or maybe not—is Vanity Fair. I have to admit that the following is a partial quote from a chapter called "Frying Pans" that your whole post made me think of:
"Charade: The Oxford English Dictionary (I own it: all seventeen volumes that include the supplements for my edition) notes that Thackeray (William Makepeace: don’t you love his middle name? A command to be taken to heart) used the word in Vanity Fair in 1848: The performers disappeared to get ready for the second charade-tableau.
After Becky Sharp has achieved the coup of marriage in chapter XVI, our narrator notes that the children dressed themselves and acted plays.
"Becky Sharp’s story of social climbing struck me as particularly grim and nothing like the fairy tale she sought. One concludes she would have kissed anyone to get where she could be.
Are you wondering if the princess does not kiss the “Frog-Prince,” what then does she do? There are two versions, plus the one Disney has provided, the kiss fulfilled, but whose roots lie with those grim brothers."
Clearly, you are on to book reviews as you read through the canon! Hurrah for you! Go for it.
Thanks Mary. Yes, I think often of cunning Becky. She and Undine Spragg are similar. I've re-started VF a few times but it's hard to spend too much time with Becky.
Honestly, “looks” have never been very important to me. I’ve never had a type beyond sharp intelligence and a very specific *spark* between me and the other person. I’ve dated some of the most physically attractive people, and also people you’d consider toads. To me, once I have a connection with someone, looks fade/disappear. It’s not that I don’t see my partner, it’s that I see their soul and that’s what attracts/ me keeps me attracted.
That said, one time a boyfriend of mine told me “you are so beautiful to me” and that felt like the most backhanded compliment ever.
Our unofficial motto at my Sydney convent school was, don’t marry for money, don’t marry without it. Patronizing elitist advice I happily ignored.
My father gave this advice: "My boy, don't marry for money. Just marry where money *is*."
I'm serious, btw.
Years and years ago I saw an Oprah winfrey show (on brit TV Thursday afternoons) this was before she had signed the .....so she had some rich girls there and they explained why it was impossible for them to ever fall in love with say,a binman (refuse disposal) and go live in a low rent area. Even if he was the loveliest person and soul out. They just would never meet that guy. They only hung out in places rich people hang out and there is a kind of invisible barrier that stops "the wrong people " infiltrating (unless it's the very attractive and engaging young woman Oprah had on the show who had snagged a couple of rich husbands by dint of buying one dress that had the "right " label and once through the invisible barrier,immense charm and being very funny,took her to success. Several times. But it's the natural charm you need,the dress on its own doesn't do it!!
In my patrilineal line every other generation or so for the last twenty generations, we catch ourselves a rich gal, or even an heiress. There's skill involved; as well as other social and educational pre-conditions. Being witty, fun, funny, easy on the eyes, companionable, and good in the sack are also essential.
Or so I was told.
😀😀😻
I think Arthur Miller is cute!!!
Definitely!!
LRB is my 37 year old daughter.
< ... she’d tweeze any hairs that grew on his ears or escaped from his nostrils... > not even my hairdoer (female) ever did this without extra payment.
So appreciate your wife's gifts. I now own tools to keep the excesses in check, although I have someone who would take care of that. But I don't want to risk an argument if the scissors should slip; for sure, I'm always very considerate, or/and forward-thinking.
But that´s beginning to sound now like a sales pitch, which I've never been in need of, just like you..
Be kind tot he wielder of share instruments near your face!
In a romantic relationship, definitely.
The piece was a breezy dance with literature necessary for this generation. I prefer sarcasm and a good kisser.
The philosophy of exchanging one's looks for economic security goes on in ALL economic classes and is very much alive today. I can't list all of my examples. I recently watched a trial where the the alleged victim, a 36 year old tow truck operator, who sounded lower middle class based on his testimony, had been shot in the stomach 8 months prior by the defendant. The alleged victim looked ragged (reasonable given his medical odyssey since the shooting so I don't know his real "before" look). Then his very very very beautiful 21 year old wife testified and we learned the couple met when she was 16. The couple did not "match." Wife sounded uneducated. The vibe in that court was that the wife used her looks to be with this tow truck operator. I was sad for this woman. I'm sad this philosophy of looks for money is still so prevalent. Another great and provocative essay David. Be well all.
Thanks Sharon and a good reminder that it occurs across all class lines.
Clever! You had me going for a moment. This makes me think what a fun exercise it would be for a high school English class to write dating profiles of protagonists in the novels they’re assigned. What would Humbert Humbert’s profile be? Or Jane Eyre? Or Billy Pilgrim or Daisy Buchanan?
Humbert's would definitely be non-PC! I'm afraid Daisy found her guy in Tom.
Good point. But maybe she’s got more up her sleeve than we thought.
This essay reminds me of a fashion editor I used to know, who fell madly in love and with a man whose sense of style left much to be desired. She knew it was mutual when he threw his arms open wide and said, “Dress me, I’m yours!” They didn’t last but I still love the line.
Thanks Rona. Effectively, that's my line as well.
Debbie for the win!
Always.
George Eliot/Marianne Evans just needs some eye cream and a new hairstyle. She gives me the vibes of all the other moms at the drop off who live in leggings and sweatshirts drinking smoothies that possibly have too much sugar to be healthy.
That's funny, Cynthia. She could have definitely improved but I guess her intellect was a powerful attractor!
Wharton was a mistress in saying words that needed to be said while still putting them within a respectable fiction context.
immensely important
it might not be visible to others or explicable or straighforward. yet it needs to be there. looks per se might or might not play a role. it's more than, or less than. doesn't matter. if it was easily explicable it wouldn't be worth writing about, or so I feel
there are many types of relationships though, so there's that too.
it's very painful when people just cut you off because they have to choose or something. and they can't stay just friends
I usually don't, or rather didn't, want to choose and don't, or rather didn't, understand fully why others have to, like some idiot toddler, and it ended badly many times.
Thanks Chen for the comment.
Great how you modify a late 1800s lady's dating profile into a more modern one. Certain elements of the past remain in the present and will likely continue on into the future. The positive possibilities are multiple but so are the insidious potential pitfalls. To end up all right is quite an achievement.
Thanks Larry.
On mutual attraction- necessary but not sufficient. Re George Eliot, she may have had a face that could stop a clock, but read somewhere that- spend a short time with her and guys would be besotted.
I can believe it Salvador. Her intellect would wow many a man.
Not just smart; charismatic as well.
Love this and have this to add:
The antithesis—or maybe not—is Vanity Fair. I have to admit that the following is a partial quote from a chapter called "Frying Pans" that your whole post made me think of:
"Charade: The Oxford English Dictionary (I own it: all seventeen volumes that include the supplements for my edition) notes that Thackeray (William Makepeace: don’t you love his middle name? A command to be taken to heart) used the word in Vanity Fair in 1848: The performers disappeared to get ready for the second charade-tableau.
After Becky Sharp has achieved the coup of marriage in chapter XVI, our narrator notes that the children dressed themselves and acted plays.
"Becky Sharp’s story of social climbing struck me as particularly grim and nothing like the fairy tale she sought. One concludes she would have kissed anyone to get where she could be.
Are you wondering if the princess does not kiss the “Frog-Prince,” what then does she do? There are two versions, plus the one Disney has provided, the kiss fulfilled, but whose roots lie with those grim brothers."
Clearly, you are on to book reviews as you read through the canon! Hurrah for you! Go for it.
Thanks Mary. Yes, I think often of cunning Becky. She and Undine Spragg are similar. I've re-started VF a few times but it's hard to spend too much time with Becky.
Honestly, “looks” have never been very important to me. I’ve never had a type beyond sharp intelligence and a very specific *spark* between me and the other person. I’ve dated some of the most physically attractive people, and also people you’d consider toads. To me, once I have a connection with someone, looks fade/disappear. It’s not that I don’t see my partner, it’s that I see their soul and that’s what attracts/ me keeps me attracted.
That said, one time a boyfriend of mine told me “you are so beautiful to me” and that felt like the most backhanded compliment ever.
Did you give him a chance to rephrase?!
He never heard the end of it!